The Government plans to crack down on copyright infringement and internet pirates, but the two options it is considering run counter to basic liberties and freedom of speech,writes Chris Berg.

One of the quickest ways for a company to cut costs is outsourcing. Even better when you can have the Government do your outsourcing for you.

This is the basic political logic behind the upcoming crackdown on online copyright infringement.

For the last year George Brandis has been hinting at a legislative crackdown on copyright infringement. It wasn't quite an election promise in 2013, but it was definitely on the cards.

Now nine months into Government the Coalition is reportedly on the brink of announcing its approach. (Momentum for the policy was temporarily slowed by the unfortunate political storm around the budget - it was due to go to cabinet in early May.)

Here's what we know. There are two proposals being considered, "graduated response" and a website blocking scheme.

In a graduated response scheme - sometimes called "three strikes" - internet service providers are required to penalise their users for pirating material on a scale of increasing severity.

Graduated response has been introduced in a number of countries around the world, including France, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and South Korea.

Typically the scheme works like this.

Copyright owners notify an ISP that they believe a user has pirated copyright material. The infringing user is initially issued with warning notices by their ISP.

If those warning notices are ignored and the user continues to infringe, more serious consequences follow.

The final punishment is the disconnection of internet service altogether.

Why disconnection? Simply because disconnection is the most severe penalty ISPs can mete out. Their only "coercive" power over their customers is to stop doing business with them.

Under Australian law downloading copyrighted material is not illegal - it is not a crime, in any formal sense. (There are some copyright offenses which are criminal: things like importing, selling, or exhibited pirated material. Basically copyright infringement on a commercial scale. But simply downloading a movie for personal use is not.)

Rather, piracy is a civil matter. Enforcing copyright requires a copyright holder to sue the pirate themselves. But litigation is complicated and expensive. Determining exactly who has pirated a particular film or music track is not easy. Lawyers are pricey.

Litigation has an even bigger cost - to reputation.

American copyright holders did themselves enormous reputational harm earlier this century when they tried to sue the piracy problem into submission.

Disconnecting someone from the internet is a big deal. It's easy to forget how integrated internet access is to the modern world.

There were some appalling cases. Take the legal action against this single mother in Minnesota, who was threatened in 2004 with a $540,000 lawsuit after her daughter downloaded some music - a damages bill orders of magnitude larger than her $21,000 annual salary.

Stories like these didn't just make the industry look greedy - it made them look cruel and vindictive.

Outsourcing the problem to ISPs with a graduated response scheme avoids the costly and controversial need to sue otherwise law abiding citizens.

Better to have the ISPs look like they're the cruel and vindictive ones.

So unsurprisingly, as Nicolas Suzor and Brian Fitzgerald pointed out in an an important 2011 paper, graduated response is counter to basic principles of the rule of law.

Disconnecting someone from the internet is a big deal. It's easy to forget how integrated internet access is to the modern world. There is hardly a public or private service that does not rely on digital interaction with customers.

Graduated response schemes impose such a punishment on internet users without also granting them the legal protections they would receive if they were taken to court.

For instance, graduated response schemes offer little in the way of due process. Copyright infringement is not always clearly proven. The schemes place the burden of proof on the accused, rather than the accuser. Graduated response can easily become draconian.

And for what? There is no reliable evidence to suggest that graduated response schemes reduce copyright infringement, as one detailed study published in the Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts found this year.

The second proposal the Abbott Government is considering to tackle piracy is certain to be even less effective: requiring ISPs to block websites that facilitate the downloading of pirated material. Websites like the Pirate Bay host torrent files through which people share content.

Never mind that some of that content is "legitimate". The last decade has conclusively demonstrated that when one avenue for piracy is closed off, another quickly appears. Exhibit A: Napster.

But more importantly, any such policy would come head to head with the Government's professed support of freedom of speech.

In 2010 Malcolm Turnbull claimed that the previous Labor government's internet filter was "dead, buried and cremated, and if it shows any signs of revival it will then be exorcised".

But a policy that blocks torrent websites will be, in a very real way, the internet filter by other means.

A crackdown on copyright infringement was not one of the Coalition's 2013 election promises. Defending free speech was.

If the copyright lobby convinces the Government to take responsibility for protecting its business model, that promise will be completely broken.

Chris Berg is policy director at the Institute of Public Affairs. Follow him at twitter.com/chrisberg. View his full profile here.

Comments (198)

the yank:

As an artist I am against others using someone's creativity for nix. As a person that considers himself realistic I don't see how the government can stop such actions without draconian actions.

That the freedom of speech somehow enters into this debate is a mystery to me; theft is theft it doesn't matter what other name you give it. I don't get how Chris makes the jump from theft to a restriction of freedom of speech.

Joanna:

10 Jun 2014 10:44:34am

the yank,I do not know what kind of an artist are you, but I willingly will pay for your creativity for you, not for several companies on the way. See, I'm old person, I like to watch sometimes the old films on DVD (like Bewitched :) ) and guess what? If I download them I'm pirate! And is not copyrighted by original producers, but stolen by the big records companies as they have put some colour on, or .. whatever, but now you have to pay their price for that.And is not fair. And may be overpricing is a source of piracy.What do you think?

Sir Bill Bored:

worrierqueen:

10 Jun 2014 1:06:34pm

From the free dictionary

theft n. the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale).

******

Copyright infringement is not theft. The infringer is not depriving someone else of their property. The owner still owns that property and can continue to sell it.

It is more akin to trespass where someone comes in and uses an owner's amenities while not actually depriving them of their property. The large entertainment companies fool gullible politicians into calling it theft so that they can maximise their profit while turning governments into the bad cops.

The question is how many people who freely download products would have bought that products could they not have downloaded it freely. The figure is around 2%. But even this isn't a loss as how many of those who freely download material then go on to buy more of the same product in future? This figure is around 3%. So although companies actually profit from piracy they want their cake and eat it too by getting the government to force the other 98% of the population who would never buy their products, to pay up anyway.

This is theft, company theft.

Disclaimer: I don't 'pirate' (download commercial software without paying for it), in fact my company has a lot of copyrightable material available for free and paid download. Although I would love all the free downloaders to pay us for their 'piracy', I'm not greedy and I am also a realist. But then my company isn't one of the biggest in the world and not in a position to pay politicians in political donations to do our bidding.

Zing:

10 Jun 2014 5:41:58pm

Theft involves taking property and "converting it to the taker's use". The term "converting" means to use the property in a way that violates the property rights of the owner.

If a person loans their car to you so you can drive to the shops, it's not theft. But if you take the car interstate against the owner's permission, you've converted the property and it becomes theft. Likewise, theft can include borrowing a car without permission even if you plan to return it.

It would be open to argue that piracy could still be considered actionable under common law and might even constitute "theft" as defined in criminal law. The only reason it isn't discussed is because copyright legislation already covers the field and has done so for some time.

Laws decide what actions are caused. The law decides that trespass against property can be called "theft", "trespass", "burglary" or "piracy" depending on the particular circumstances. Each one can be considered a crime or sued as a personal action.

You can say that "piracy isn't theft" - but it's just semantics. Both actions are recognised as wrongs. The only difference is how society chooses to enforce it.

Mitor the Bold:

10 Jun 2014 6:11:11pm

"Likewise, theft can include borrowing a car without permission even if you plan to return it."

I don't think that's right. The difference between 'joyriding' and theft is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property. That's why so many joyriders aren't currently languishing in jail for theft.

"It would be open to argue that piracy could still be considered actionable under common law and might even constitute "theft" as defined in criminal law"

The courts have recognised that copyright infringement is not theft so I'm not sure from where you draw that conclusion. You might like to think of it as theft but this says more about your personal moral code than it does about law.

Zing:

10 Jun 2014 6:33:35pm

"The difference between 'joyriding' and theft is the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property"

There is little difference, as far as the law is concerned.

Permanently depriving the owner of property is only one statutory definition of theft. The other common definition of theft is to convert the property - to use the property in a way that is incompatible with the owner's property rights. In most jurisdictions, conversion is a separate crime or falls under the definition of theft itself.

If you joyride, it's not a victimless crime. You use the owner's petrol and potentially damage the car. You deprive the owner of using their car as long as you possess it. By using the car without their permission, you've violated their right to determine how the car may be used. For these reasons, it generally constitutes theft as well as a civil action.

"The courts have recognised that copyright infringement is not theft"

What I've argued is that copyright infringement is a violation of property rights. The courts agree and so does the law - which is why we're having this conversation in the first place.

Mitor the Bold:

"The other common definition of theft is to convert the property - to use the property in a way that is incompatible with the owner's property rights."

That is right - but I don't believe the courts have decided that interference with copyright easily equates with theft. No theft of copyright has occurred - the copyright is intact.

"What I've argued is that copyright infringement is a violation of property rights."

No, what you've argued is that copyright infringement is theft - but it is not. Smashing someone's car with a hammer is a violation of property rights - that's not theft either. Theft and copyright violation are not synonymous.

Zing:

"I don't believe the courts have decided that interference with copyright easily equates with theft."

They don't need to. Copyright legislation already covers the field making it a civil and criminal offence.

In the absence of legislation, it could easily be argued that copyright infringement constitutes theft: If I have rights over intellectual property, it follows that the copy you create is also subject to those rights. By possessing the copy without paying for it, you've stolen the copy from me - or alternatively, you've dealt with the original copy in a way that constitutes conversion.

davIRE:

11 Jun 2014 4:55:22am

Using a car is a pretty awful example unless you have the means to create an exact replica of said car, then take it for yourself without damaging or removing the original car from its owners possession.

if you want to go for backyard metaphors how about this:

you neighbor has a beautiful prize winning potted orchid. however this neighbor doesnt wish you to see this orchid (as you may wish to purchase tickets to see the flowering plant at a gardening expo in the future) so he shouts at you, threatens you and tries to get the local council to erect an enormous fence around said orchid to protect it from prying eyes.

you want to see the contentthe content provider wishes to have absolute control over said content to the point where you, the consumer, can be excluded from said content and sale thereof.the content provider also wishes for your elected officials to foot the bills (meaning you and everyone around you are paying for the measures) for stopping you looking at the content they're only willing to provide at their discretion (think Disney's Vault)

Zing:

11 Jun 2014 12:55:39pm

Using a flower is a pretty bad example, davIRE. You can view a flower without the owner's permission simply by looking over your fence and not physically interacting with it.

Obtaining a pirated film on your computer is different. The film physically exists in your computer's memory. At some point you must have accessed and copied a legitimate version of the film, or you obtained a copy from someone who did.

Piracy isn't a crime against intellectual property - It's a crime against physical property. Because at some point, someone needed to physically interact with a legitimate version and create a physical copy in an unlawful manner.

The only question is what part a particular pirate plays in that crime. Are they the instigator, or are they just receiving the proceeds of crime from an associate?

graazt:

11 Jun 2014 4:26:03pm

"Piracy isn't a crime against intellectual property - It's a crime against physical property. Because at some point, someone needed to physically interact with a legitimate version and create a physical copy in an unlawful manner."

Property rights aren't a binary proposition. They exist in degrees, which vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It may suit your purposes to conflate all rights violations for some moral purpose, but your moral assertions can easily be rejected on the same basis you assert them. They are ultimately arbitrary.

semprini:

semprini:

11 Jun 2014 7:01:41am

"Bewitched" is regularly on cable tv. Nobody is forcing you to pirate it.

There was a story yesterday, about how Louis C K is complaining about Australians being pirates, becausethey all know his show, which isn't broadcast here. He should get his facts straight, his show hasbeen on cable tv in australia for years.

Bundy:

11 Jun 2014 2:46:21pm

I don't wish to buy cable - I wish to buy selected content that I want to view, not pay $110 a month to get 80 channels of crap that repeats 3 times a day and has gotten progressively lower in quality over time.

So - what are my options. I can wait until the Bluray/DVD comes out, but that only comes out months/years after the content is available otherwise.

Ideally I would like to buy it directly from the producer, but thats not an option because I live in the wrong country and some exclusive contracts with Foxtel prevent me doing so. Even if I wanted to pay money for it its not possible. I could get it from iTunes, but that is not usable on any device I would like to use to watch this content.

I can easily download it from the internet for free and watch it when I want, how I want, often before I get spoiled by websites putting up spoilers the moment it airs.

I enjoy the content so much, I buy the special bluray sets when they are eventually released 9 months later. The producer gets their money, and I get the content I want in the manner I want.

Look at what iTunes has done for music - sure there is music piracy still, but for most people they will just go buy it now days, so much so its becoming the dominant force in the market.

If you offer consumers the options they want, they will generally be happy to pay for it.

gbe:

10 Jun 2014 12:44:43pm

I don't think your making much sense Pirating software and audio and visual content that is not claimed as free is stealing simple. You can download free stuff most ISP's have a free-zone this is posted from a free Unix operating system. Microsoft and Mac are not free.

hometapingiskillingmusic:

10 Jun 2014 1:59:30pm

The latest mantra to be chanted is that filesharing is stealing, well others here have outlined what stealing really is, so no point going on again about it. But remember that those Australians that use VPN's to access cheaper content that they paid for from overseas have now been accused of piracy. How dare Aussies enter the global marketplace without going through the Aussie middleman, the cheek of it all!

For more than a century the media industry has complained that every single new bit of technology was going to end their industry.

It started back over 100 years ago when the self playing piano (the pianola) was going to kill the live music industry. It didn't!

Fast forward to the 1970's when the music industry was chanting the mantra "home taping is killing music". It didn't!

Then the movie industry complained that it was the end of the world of movies when video recorders came into every home. It didn't!

Now we have the media content industry complaining for the last 15 years that digital filesharing is killing their industry. It didn't.

Instead of using every new technology to improve their sales, they just slagged them off, then after many years they finally end up embracing the said new technology to benefit their sales. Check how much is made from video/DVD sales compared to cinema profits, hint - it's much greater. Unlike the music industry which has finally embraced online digital sales the movie industry still doesn't want to properly use the technology readily available to them. When they have tried to make an effort it ends up being a complete dog's breakfast, all so they can control every aspect of the product once you have 'bought' it. Funny how businesses are all for the 'free market', until it hurts their sales, eh Mr. Murdoch, your new improved Fraudband keeps all newcomers out of the digital distribution market for many years to come. Cha-Ching!!

The video gaming industry has reduced unauthorised copying of their products simply by making them available online at a reasonable price. So we the consumers aren't asking the video industry to be early adapters or even pioneers, just be a sheep & follow the rest of the flock online. The commercial reality of keeping a product scarce to increase it's value just doesn't wash in the digital age especially as their 'product' can be endlessly copied at 'zero' cost.

The longer they drag their asses on the ground, the more they will get kicked in the head. If the Pirate Bay & other filesharing sites can put together a business model that allows 'one-stop shopping' in an easy to use format, then the consumer expects those that are the so called 'experts' in their industries can do likewise. We're neither holding our breath or waiting!

gbe:

10 Jun 2014 4:34:52pm

hometapingiskillingmusic: Look your just trying to muddy the waters you know full well that downloading copyright materiel is stealing and no one who is legally buying a product that is cheaper online is a pirate you know that as well. Just face it pirating is stealing if your doing it your a thief.

fairdinkum:

10 Jun 2014 2:16:26pm

Have you tried to put your own music into an Apple Ipod lately?

Well, what happens is that you have to choose which album it comes from on your Apple IPad. If you happen to pick the wrong album, then it disallows you from using the music that you have legitimately paid for.

To me, that is theft in the ultimate, denying a person the right to a product that they have legitimately paid for.

To my way of thinking, when you see entertainers living in multi million dollar mansions and flying in private jets to their luxury cabin cruisers moared in expensive tax havens, I think that we are paying way too much for their "creativity".

What these "artists" do not seem to realise is that a person can only spend so much money, after that every cent received is meaningless and they end up finding more more absurd ways to get rid of the money that has accumulated.

That is why significant numbers end up addicted to drugs, alcohol or sex. They cannot find happiness.

Lower the prices to realistic levels and people will be happy to pay. Conitnue charging exhorbinant prices to support unrealsitic lifestyles, and people will look for ways to circumvent the system.

Applaudanum:

10 Jun 2014 6:34:39pm

"If you happen to pick the wrong album, then it disallows you from using the music that you have legitimately paid for."

That isn't true. You are still free to use your album on your CD player. In your example, you have failed to jump the hurdles put in front of you by the makers of the iPad. This leaves you with the simple choice of deciding to jump the 'apple' ship by switching to a competitor's version of 'iPad' that possibly allows for greater functionality in this regard, rather than the iPad's 'decreased' functionality.

Steffen:

10 Jun 2014 8:45:21pm

"Have you tried to put your own music into an Apple Ipod lately?

Well, what happens is that you have to choose which album it comes from on your Apple IPad. If you happen to pick the wrong album, then it disallows you from using the music that you have legitimately paid for. "

I have no idea what you could mean by that, but it's almost certainly wrong.

Over 80% of the music in my iTunes library was not purchased from the iTunes Store. Most of it I ripped myself from CDs, using the iTunes software. When I do so, and the CD I'm ripping is known to the iTunes Store then iTunes will contribute track info and other metadata tags, incl. album cover art ??for free. All this music will then go, nicely tagged and with album art, onto my iPod, iPhone, etc., indistinguishable from music I've bought from the iTunes Store.

Conversely, if I choose to buy music from the iTunes Store there are no technical limitations to what I can do with it. I can copy it across to other computers, I can burn it to CD and use in the car. I don't know what you mean by "disallows you from using the music", maybe you can be more specific.

Now movies, that's a different topic altogether. Movies (and TV shows) bought from the iTunes Store come with copy protection, you cannot use them as you please. That restriction is not Apple's choice, of course, but imposed by the rights holders.

Todd:

10 Jun 2014 2:18:54pm

gbe, the legal position is that it is not theft. Theft is a CRIMINAL offence. The remedies available to those who suffer a breach of their copyright are entitled to CIVIL remedies, chiefly damages. The Government (executive) has no place in civil proceedings. If you breach a contract with me, should I be able to get the police around and then have the taxpayer pay for my law suit against you? Of course not. Even if you think it should be that way, that goes against the Westminster system that is our legal bedrock. The judiciary and executive should be subject to the Separation of Powers principles inherent in our Law for reasons I cannot go into here. Just google separation of powers and you should find some stuff to educate yourself as to why the judiciary should deal with civil disputes and not the executive.

taxedoff:

10 Jun 2014 11:04:31am

agreed that theft is theft and freedom of speech is a bit different however in the modern world of instant we have in effect created the pirate monster. we have grown used to getting everything on demand and as soon as possible. one way around some aspects of piracy is for tv programs to be in time with the usa . we have cable tv and the internet and high speed downloads so why not have cable tv move into instant cable . but then we all know that cable tv isnt instant and 90% of it repeats. cable tv in away has promoted the desire for piracy as we all know many programs are available but our instant lifestyle desires it now. if prices were to drop dramatically and most items became just downloads free from the waste of advertising then less piracy would occur. if items are available then there's less possibility for piracy but the problems of control of supply against demand maintains the piracy. if we do have a free market ecconomy then freedom to access upon payment would help pave the way. the pirate websites don't operate via charity but are a big business model filled with adverts to pay the way and make some companies huge amounts of money. the last point , I would guess that before we chase the pirates we should ensure the large companies who evade taxes should be paying their way first such as apple and google .

stu:

Copyright infringement is not theft. Nor is banning it a restriction on freedom of speech. It is unfortunate that these three concepts keep getting conflated in the arguments about IP laws.

Copyright no longer serves the function that it was originally designed for. In the 21st century it seems reasonable that we should, in light of modern technological advances, re-visit the laws around this. That of course would upset the businessesthat have based their entire profit model on the IP system created around the print and film media, but those dinosaurs are dying anyway. The internet killed the video star.

NewSpeaker:

10 Jun 2014 1:13:05pm

All files on computers can be broken down at the base level to a pattern of 'ones' and 'zeros' (or a really big number in base 2). Society has found these patterns useful and in order to encourage people to keep producing these patterns has granted a monopoly on the rights to reproduce these patterns to the creator.

Earlier in history these patterns were displayed mainly in other formats such as pits on a vinyl disc, patterns on celluloid tape or letters and symbols impressed on paper with ink. The patterns were expensive and harder to reproduce and only a few had the ability duplicate these patterns on a large scale.

With the invention of the modern computer these patterns were digitised so the computer could manipulate them. Some very smart people also thought it would be useful for these computers to communicate patterns of 'ones' and 'zeros' with each other. This idea was eventually taken to the extreme and the Internet was born. At first these computers were used by people with specialised training, but eventually the computer was owned by almost everyone in the western world.

We have gone from a situation where useful patterns were very hard to reproduce to where they can now be reproduced easily and for little cost.

The question shouldn't be "How do we stop people we don't want copying patterns of 'ones' and 'zeros'?" but should be "What is the most efficient way to encourage new patterns to be created for the benefit of society?".

Zing:

11 Jun 2014 12:37:32pm

Intellectual property, true to it's name, only exists in the mind.

The moment intellectual property leaves the mind, it becomes physical property. It has to be physically present somewhere - on paper, as radio waves, signals in optical cable or stored on your computer's physical memory. And if property is physical, it can be stolen or used in an unlawful manner.

Without information, the means of transferring information becomes worthless. Without originality, patterns can't exist. Thus, society has an interest in ensuring that the value of patterns are protected. If the value of patterns are not respected, people will be less likely to create the original ideas from which these patterns derive.

NewSpeaker:

11 Jun 2014 1:50:30pm

When it is physical property it is covered under normal property laws. If I steal your book from your bag I am charged with theft, not copyright infringement. If I make a reproduction of your book without permission (or lawful exemption under fair dealing) I can be sued in a civil court.

Copyright protects the right to reproduce the pattern, not the physical manifestation of the pattern. It's worth noting the the idea isn't copyrightable, only the expression of the idea. Most ideas build of older ideas.

Is a system where the expression of an idea is owned by a single entity for the authors life + 75 years the most efficient way of producing new ideas? Would shorter terms, more exceptions or harsher enforcement benefit society more? These are the kinds of questions we should ask. The debate shouldn't be limited to the default which is "copying is always bad and you're all water based thieves unless American companies get their pound of flesh."

Personally I do not do anything I consider piracy. I use mainly FOSS software. I don't consider bypassing geoblocks piracy since they are artificial restrictions. I pay Netflix to let me stream tv shows and movies. I don't see why in a global economy I should pay more for the exact same product.

A Photographer:

10 Jun 2014 1:37:19pm

Copyright infringement is theft. How can it not be? If someone takes a copy of my work without my permission and uses it in their business then they are depriving me of an income from my work product. You would not deny if was theft if I had built a car and someone took that without permission. What is the difference? Do you think that because it is on the internet that it should be free and that it did not cost me money to produce?

Copyright does server the function that it was originally designed for as it was designed to protect the income of the person/business that invested time and money into the product. The problem is that the internet has made the theft easier and harder to stop. That doesn't mean we should scrap the idea and allow a free for all. Anyone who has invested their time and money to create something, regardless of what that something is, have a right to earn a living from their efforts. You sound like you think they should work for free. Are you willing to do your job for free too? I bet the answer is no.

NewSpeaker:

"You would not deny if was theft if I had built a car and someone took that without permission. What is the difference?"

The difference nobody is stealing the car. They are making a copy of the car. You still have your car. No theft has occurred. No property has been deprived.

What has happened is Copyright Infringement. This occurs where a person does an act falling within the copyright owner's exclusive rights, without the authorisation of the copyright owner (such as reproducing your photo without your permission).

There is a reason the Copyright act exists. The exclusive rights to your work aren't covered under traditional property laws.

Aussie Roadster:

10 Jun 2014 2:18:04pm

Hi Photoperson,

Will refer you to this :

"Under Australian law downloading copyrighted material is not illegal - it is not a crime, in any formal sense. (There are some copyright offenses which are criminal: things like importing, selling, or exhibited pirated material. Basically copyright infringement on a commercial scale. But simply downloading a movie for personal use is not.)"

Now, just say you have a display somewhere (even at home). I can take a photo of this (being your photos or what is on display) and is not illegal, nor have I broken your copyright. What I cannot do is give this, sell it or show it. If used for my private use, it is not illegal/criminal.

"You would not deny if was theft if I had built a car and someone took that without permission."

That is theft, if you designed a car & I took photos of the vehcile or plans that would not be illegal. If I then used those photos or plans to build a car, then you could sue me.

You keep confusing actual removal of an item to duplicating/copying. There is a vast legal difference which is why 1 is illegal and the other is not.

The problem that the internet provides, is that the "illegal" downloads do not come from 1 source. Download a movie, it will come from over 1,000 computers (100,000 for GoT) from all over the world giving their little bit. Their is no 1 transfer from 1 computer to another.

Your problem is, your ownership is not just yours if you decide to display it. Unfortunately, you are no longer in charge once it goes public.

hometapingiskillingmusic:

10 Jun 2014 2:57:13pm

The vast majority of filesharers aren't doing it for a profit, so go ahead & sue the businesses making money from your works, there are plenty of people around the world selling other people's works without the original artist/composer/writer/photographer getting a cent.

However in many cases they have signed their right to profit from their work to a middleman who had no hand in the creation of the said works. Just ask scientific journal contributors how they can get sued for publishing their own works on their own websites either internally in an institution of higher learning or to the world in general.

Copyright is supposed to help the creators create more by allowing them a limited time to profit, allowing copyright to continue long after the death of the content creator does nothing for the content creator's creativity.

A real photographer:

10 Jun 2014 3:52:30pm

Copyright infringement is NOT theft.

I am a photographer, and other people regularly use my photos without my permission or knowledge, usually without even acknowledgement. They use my photos both online, reports, publications, and even published in newspapers.Whilst I do not like this happening and I complain about it, in reality it is of little consequence as they are not depriving me of my photos. They are merely using them without my permission and without any recompense to me.

Mitor the Bold:

10 Jun 2014 6:16:55pm

"But both are violations of property rights and both are actionable under the law. Your point?"

I suppose his point was that they are not equivalent breaches. The conflation of theft and copyright violation is a trick the recording industry has long played to brand 'pirates' as thieves - but they're not thieves.

Maybe if the recording industry had spent more time adapting to the changes in technology rather than trying to criminalise their audiences they might have thought up the idea of iTunes rather than leaving it to a computer company to become the world's largest ever music retailer.

Zing:

The only reason the copyright companies brand pirates as thieves is because calling them "violators of intellectual property rights" doesn't roll off the tongue as easy.

If you pirate, you violate property rights. The law will enforce those rights and punish you. If you tell the judge "piracy isn't theft" I'm sure the judge will agree - but what difference will it make to the outcome?

Mitor the Bold:

11 Jun 2014 1:59:35am

"His point is semantics, Mitor."

I don't think it's simply semantics. Words have power, and branding someone who downloads something for which they have no permission as a thief is not just a semantic confusion - it is a serious charge.

The recording industry calls them thieves not just for the sake of shorthand but to stir emotions. The same way some people call asylum seekers 'illegals' or their enemies in general 'vermin'.

Zing:

11 Jun 2014 11:42:21am

This debate has to be a philosophical argument. The legal argument was lost before you began. Piracy is already a crime and a civil action under law. That's why you're arguing to change the status quo.

But the term "thief" is commonly understood to mean "unlawfully possessing property". And from that perspective, it is perfectly fine to refer to a pirate as a thief.

You can argue that piracy doesn't fit the Australian statutory definition of theft. You might be right. And from a statutory perspective, burglary isn't theft either (they're treated as separate crimes). But does it really advance your argument to make such distinctions?

darthseditious:

10 Jun 2014 8:07:36pm

The current system we operate under, the uk based copyright laws, set time limits on copyright (100 years I think it is) which is more than enough time for the holder and their family (down to their great grandchildren) to enjoy the royalties. Once, however, that time period is passed, the copyright lapses and the property becomes public domain (Dracula and Sherlock holmes are now public domain and can be used by anyone in a creative sense). I believe the time period for movies etc is even shorter, 50 years. The US system is a bit more of a mongrel as it allows companies like fox and so on to take out almost perpetual rights over material which effectively locks it away. The TPP would impose on us a US style copyright regime which will only benefit the big corporations over even the rights of the author/artist. If Brandis thinks piracy is a problem now (and I really don't think it is), wait until this new system is imposed then Chris Berg and the IPA really will have something to complain about.

Mary2:

10 Jun 2014 12:56:31pm

You may be right legally but morally piracy definitely is theft. You are depriving an artist of the finances they should receive when you buy their labour. No different than getting me to dig a hole for you and then refusing to pay me for it.

graazt:

"You are depriving an artist of the finances they should receive when you buy their labour."

Not every download represents a lost sale though. And you are not buying an artists labour. But a copy of her output.

Regardless of the morality around it, the increase in piracy reflects the almost free costs around replicating digital content. Putting the genie back in the bottle isn't feasible. Geo-blocking, reversing the onus of proof, and other measures haven't stopped piracy.

Real Skeptic:

10 Jun 2014 2:35:32pm

Your analogy doesn't work because you wouldn't have dug the hole without my initiation. If I were to incidentally benefit from a hole that you were digging anyway for someone else, that would be a better analogy.

Most people who pirate do it because they wouldn't be willing to pay the market rate for that particular service. There are 4 main reasons for this: 1) They could have seen it for free on TV anyway, but due to broadcast schedules or delays it wasn't convient, 2) They want to try before they buy and will only pay for things they really like, and 3) it is too difficult or expensive to obtain by legitimate means. People that love Game Of Thones but don't want to subscribe to Foxtel fall in this catagory. Many people would be willing to pay to download GOT directly from HBO but don't have that option. Other people that fall in the last catagory simply wouldn't watch/listen to/play something if they had to pay because they don't have much money. Therefore the artist gains nothing from them regardless of whether they pirate.

Stephen:

10 Jun 2014 3:56:12pm

That's not quite true though.

What you have described is someone not paying for services rendered to another person - Person A has expended time, resources and/or energy digging a hole, and they are not compensated. It may even be breach of contract because you had agreed to pay.

With unauthorised copying, there is an opportunity cost, but for a work that already exists there is no real cost to the creator - there is no noticeable difference to them whether you download the item or don't download it.

Unauthorised duplication is illegal, but it's a completely different action to stealing. I understand that it is quite abstract, which is why many people make simplistic comparisons to theft, which is a much more concrete, easier to understand concept.

In the end though, it doesn't matter - other industries have shown that people will happily pay for content if you actually cater to what the market wants.

DethLok:

10 Jun 2014 4:10:18pm

Actually, I think the entities depriving the artists is the MPAA and the RIAA...When you read what actual artists have to say about these two groups, you realise that they are not exactly the good guys.

WA Ideas:

"In the criminal code, theft requires the deprivation of a material good - i.e. the shop had a DVD, somebody stole it, now they don't have one."

Actually stealing (as theft is not the name of the offence) means to take possession of another person's property with the intention of permanently depriving that other person of the property.

Property is defined to include both tangible and intangible property. Intangible property broadly means something that does not have a physical form but which is capable of being possessed. Hence, an interest in copyright is a form of property. Also, an interest in the royalties that are derived from exploiting the copyright is also of a proprietary nature, that is, the right to the royalties can be bought and sold and hence is capable of being possessed.

So when people talk of downloading music, movies, tv shows and software other than by way of purchasing such things from the copyright owner or a licensed seller, then in doing so you are taking possession of the intellectual property with the intention of permanently depriving the copyright owner of the royalty that they would otherwise derive from exploiting the copyright.

Stephen G:

11 Jun 2014 2:37:12pm

"So when people talk of downloading music, movies, tv shows and software other than by way of purchasing such things from the copyright owner or a licensed seller, then in doing so you are taking possession of the intellectual property with the intention of permanently depriving the copyright owner of the royalty that they would otherwise derive from exploiting the copyright."

But the fact remains that that doesn't fit into the legal definition of theft, because the key phrase is "with the intention of permanently depriving that other person of the property".

Making an infringing copy of a work doesn't deprive any party of anything that they possessed before the copy was made - which is why it's not called theft, and why there are separate laws to deal with it. Because it's a different thing, which was my entire premise.

whatif:

RobP:

10 Jun 2014 12:22:24pm

"That the freedom of speech somehow enters into this debate is a mystery to me ..."

No mystery. If the Government cracks down the way that's suggested, then people could easily be penalised far too severely for minor or even non-transgressions. And how do you ascertain whether someone has been involved in piracy? That's too hard to determine accurately. Once the Government gives the green light to penalising people for this, the ISPs will apply some fairly broad-brush/clumsy strokes to fix the problem which will definitely be unfair on some. It could be similar to the complaints of renters who have been put on a black-list by their landlord and left there for far too long for what they've (supposedly) done wrong.

It's great if you're on the right side of it, but could be terrible if you're on the wrong side. The Government needs to be careful here.

Jay Somasundaram:

Actually it isn't. In Australia, for example the idea that land could be owned by individuals was imported by the British. The concept of "intellectual property" is even more ephemeral.

An alternative idea is that to ascribe private ownership to ideas, aspects of one's culture etc. is abhorrent. That the Australia government chose to pay copyright fees to a US firm to play the Waltzing Matilda leaves me speechless!

rattan:

Zing:

11 Jun 2014 2:39:21pm

Nobody said the pirate stole the original. The issue is that the pirate copies the original and then steals the copy.

The copy started in the physical memory of another computer. It travelled through optical cables, a server, a wireless network and then ended in the physical memory of the pirate's computer. If the pirate wanted, he can take the memory out and hold in his hand.

At all stages of the process, the copy is physical and capable of being moved. And that means it's something capable of being stolen.

Todd:

10 Jun 2014 2:11:15pm

As a Leftie, yank, no doubt you supported Labor's Internet Filter. ANY restrcition as to accessibility of web sites is a restriction of freedom of speec - where the site does not involve criminal behaviour (copyright infringment is NOT criminal theft) there is no room for Government to interfere, least of all a coalition Government. To be fair to Labor, at least the Nanny State is in their DNA and is supported by many of their loyal followers who would rather not have the burden of making decisions for themselves so they "outsource" thought to Labor. On the other hand, the coalition is supposed to support individual choice and freedom and people like me who do not want Government in our lounge rooms, bedrooms and studies etc.

This is a case, once again, of the Libs trying to be like Labor and the Greens with their Internet Filter. As Chris pointed out, downloading for personal use is a breach of copyright that lends itself to CIVIL remedies only. NOT CRIMINAL. I would ask what role a clumsy executive has in civil proceedings? None.

If Brandis does this, I would demand that he join the Labor Party or the Greens. People criticise Mal for being too Left. Well, what the hell woould you call this idea? This is the ultimate Left ideal. It is the thin end of the Orwellian wedge. I accepted his freedom of speech rhetoric with respect to 18C, but if he is prepared to run roughshod over the concept of freedom of speech in this case, then he was clearly just protecting Bolt and not the wider concept of Freedom of Speech.

No wonder you left the US, yank. I( would have told you that you came to the wrong country if you were treying to escape freedom and individual choice. It seems that you may have made the right choice afterall.

Oh, and you can now count one more Liberal that would prefer Mr Turnbull as PM. Unfortunately, I would have to describe the current cabinet as religious zealots. They are certainly not right wing in the sense that I use the word, that is, supporters of freedom and individual choice, both economic and social. But who else can I put after the Lib Dems (which is kind of a wasted Primary Vote in my seat)? As I said, the Greens and Labor wear their collectivism as a badge of honour - which is at least more honest than the weay this Government has betrayed all manner of ideals that Menzies built the Party around. Shame on Abbott if he let's Brandis do this to the Party.

Kerry Wright:

10 Jun 2014 2:13:32pm

Theft it is if copyright material is being resold. I am an author/publisher who discovered one of my books "The Mud Crab Book" was being photocopied and sold on ebay and perhaps elsewhere.Getting it stopped was a real problem, with ebay showing little interest in the thief listing my books.The thief openly boasted that I wouldn't be able to stop him because copyright law is too ineffective and expensive to be effectiveThe Australian Federal Police had no interest in pursuing the matter despite considerable lobbying my MP. It needs to be a major copyright theft for them to be interested.Years later I am still dealing with the aftermath of this theft as the thief has been very abusive and because he is interstate it is difficult to get any action against him

MrSmith:

11 Jun 2014 3:30:28pm

The solution to this problem is both simple and complex in nature. For the vast majority of pirates, the cause is purely accessibility, we know it isn't financial, as music pirates on average own more legitimately purchased music than non-pirates.

The most prolifically pirated TV show, Game of Thrones is only accessible legally in this country by the purchase of a two year contract with Foxtel. Starting at about $70 a month, that is an extortionate amount of money to gain access to 10 episodes a year (~200 hours of film for ~$1700). This means that many, many Australians choose to pirate because the content is more easily available, more rapidly available and cheap. As soon as online on demand television services are able to get a foothold in this country, pay tv will die it's 10 year overdue death.

So to stop piracy, we need to make legitimate sources for media both accessible and affordable. Paying $85 per episode of Game of Thrones is completely unreasonable and trying to legislate to protect such businesses is counter productive.

Mitor the Bold:

10 Jun 2014 10:06:35am

I think it's more fundamental than that - that an artist feels entitled to receive riches for maybe 2-3 days of work producing a popular song or movie or other work of art is misguided. His work might be good, but is it worth a decade's income for a doctor or carpenter or teacher? The digital economy means he'll have to produce such works more frequently to make ends meet. He'll have to perform live and maybe have to licence his work for commercial use.

In other words, his work will be subject to the same supply & demand pricing yours and mine is. Restricted supply is not a business model - it's a technological deficiency. In 2014 this deficiency has been remedied. The product of artists will have to compete in a newly open and competitive market - commodity products will attract commodity pricing, only the truly innovative will find a premium-paying audience.

jungle69:

10 Jun 2014 1:19:38pm

Judging by your answer Mitor, you obviously have no idea what is required of a musician to get a song from idea to product. Or what it takes to get a film from concept to screen. I've worked in the music and film industries for many years. Have you? What is being discussed here is enforcement of copyright infringements and how best to treat the problem. This story is all about George Brandis protecting the incomes of giants like Sony and Fox. Not your distorted ideas of artists ripping out a few million dollars for 2 - 3 days work whenever they feel like it! Your idea of a bold new world where the artists will have to work harder to earn a living smacks of jealousy towards artists.

Mitor the Bold:

10 Jun 2014 6:02:41pm

"Your idea of a bold new world where the artists will have to work harder to earn a living smacks of jealousy towards artists."

You're probably right - I'd always wondered why a hit record seemed to confer an automatic right to an opulent life of debauchery while my daily work successes led to the same paycheque. But my point was really that the product itself has changed, and while for a few years merely putting out a CD or vinyl or tape was enough to confer riches to a lucky few, now the road to riches is not so smooth.

Copyright was always about the record companies anyway, not the artists. Brandis protecting big corporates at the expense of ordinary people? Who'd have thought.

Zing:

11 Jun 2014 2:44:06pm

Mitor. The artist is entitled to whatever amount his legitimate customers are willing to pay.

Of course, pirates can steal copies of his music without paying. In the same way, people can go to the doctor and subsequently refuse to pay his fees, or a burglar can steal a carpenter's goods rather than pay for them.

But just because a criminal can take something without permission doesn't mean that society needs to permit it.

Bev:

10 Jun 2014 10:11:38am

Totally agree. Take Game of Thrones. Foxtel has now stopped anybody else from making copies available. You could get it from Itunes at a fair price but now you have to take out a Foxtel subscription to get it. In any other activity or selling situation this would be considered a monopoly situation and action could be taken. Why is this a special case?

burke:

darthseditious:

10 Jun 2014 8:29:42pm

Burke you are the one barking up the wrong tree. HBO is one of the channels on foxtel. If you want to watch GOT you have to get Foxtel. All other legal avenues were closed when Foxtel and HBO did a n exclusive deal for the broadcast of GOT in Australia, shutting out Netflicks and Itunes. What you said was total BS and I call it out on you.

rattan:

Ann:

11 Jun 2014 2:16:29pm

Even that is small chips compared to what these companies would LIKE to be doing to us.

Just look at games, which are sold as digital copies to Australians for sometimes twice the price they are sold to other countries. If you try to get around it by using an IP client, they try to find other ways to find out and penalise you.

Movies are released at completely separate times for Aussies - as are TV series. The internet lets us know when it comes out but, oh, boo hoo, too bad Australia, you have to wait 5 months. Oh and you'll be paying more for it as well. Kangaroo tax, and all, you know.

Caffettierra Moka:

10 Jun 2014 2:15:11pm

Peter. You are way way off target.

This is how the model works. Person X writes a book, let's say it is called 'Barry Slotter and the Game of Throngs". They go to a publishing company. The company enters into an agreement with the author to pay them so much to produce a run of copies of the work. They pay the author for that right to copy it; ie a copy-right. The author gets their money up front.

The company then employs an artist to produce a lurid image with dragons, severed heads and gratuitious nudity. They also get paid up front. The company prints a hundred thousand copies figuring that they can sell most, they work out a RRP that ensures that they recover all the costs for paying the author, the artist and the printer. The sell the books for about 1/3 of the RRP to the bookstores and chains that actually sell it to you, the customer. At this point the company gets to recoup their money and make a profit. If they want to republish, they enter into a new agreement to get the right to copy again.

At the point you actually purchase the work, the author, artist, printer, publisher and chain have already made their profit. If you lend the book on, there is no loss to the author as they have already been paid 1/100,000th of the price that the company paid them for this print run. If a library buys 10 and lends them, same deal - the author doesn't lose money on the deal either. You or the library have not produced copies outside of the deal that the author and the company made.

Stephen G:

Early Grayce:

10 Jun 2014 1:14:28pm

You may think of it as a Netflix alternative but to do so would mean you have no idea what Netflix is and have not tried Quickflix for yourself or looked at their terms and conditions.Quickflix is a truly pale imitation which is why they were in financial peril a few years ago.

getreal:

graazt:

10 Jun 2014 2:49:00pm

Yet more artificial barriers (based on geography) so that content distributors can profiteer based on artificial market segmentation. Globalisation is for producers (ie labour) and not consumers apparently.

When you own exclusive rights to content, you're effectively a monopoly and can charge what the market will bear. Which is now significantly less given there's a free alternative.

There's opportunities for artists out there. Given distribution is almost universally free, artists don't need to rely upon others to distribute content like they use to (including having their work conform with the commercial risk profile of whomever owns the legacy channels).

Ultimately the technology has reduced costs around distribution; and consumers and producers can benefit alike.

I sure wouldn't want to be one of the dinosaurs who profited merely from artificial scarcity though. Brandis Inc can't save em. Although he can certainly make many people's lives worse for trying.

FedUpExpress:

10 Jun 2014 4:49:02pm

No. Copyright infringement is a criminal matter in many countries (including Australia) and carries custodial sentences if caught and the decision is made to prosecute. Commercial scale or otherwise, is irrelevant.

FedUpExpress:

10 Jun 2014 4:55:56pm

For example if you have a fake copy of 'Microsoft Word' on your computer. 'Microsoft' can, if they choose to, prosecute you, and indeed the state can send you to prison if found guilty, regardless of wether or not it was 'you' just using it for 'personal' use only.

NewSpeaker:

11 Jun 2014 1:23:33pm

"Under the Copyright Act, a person who infringes copyright may, in some cases, be committing acriminal offence (as well as being liable to the owner of the copyright). It is, for example, an offenceto make an infringing copy of a program in order to sell it. It is also an offence to advertise thesupply of an infringing program, or to have a device (such as a computer) that you know you willuse to infringe copyright."

"In strict legal terms, this is only correct if the copy is made for certain commercial purposes,such as sale or hire. While copyright is defined in the Copyright Act as personal property,making and infringing copyright material for your own use does not give rise to criminal liability."

Taken from the Australian Copyright Council. So Again, Downloading a song or movie on the internet for personal use is covered under civil law, not criminal law.

Early Grayce:

Bev:

OhMy:

10 Jun 2014 12:02:23pm

Copyright laws allow one to copy material for their own use, but not to sell, broadcast or advertise.

Years ago someone would buy a vinyl record and later cd's and all their friends would hang out to listen and often tape a copy. This was a bit murky legally as one is only allowed to make three copies, but it was ignored as no copies were used for financial gain. No mention was ever made of how many people listened to it.

Recently "piracy" seems to mean that unless one buys something for oneself they should be prosecuted, or punished somehow. Piracy seems to prohibit shared listening or watching and definitely doesn't allow for a replacement if the wrong item or faulty download, etc. And yet copyright laws have not changed, (nor for that matter have consumers rights) it is just shifting emphasis.

Early Grayce:

10 Jun 2014 1:42:59pm

The recent copyright laws were created after an outburst by IP owners concerned about people stealing TV shows from broadcast onto video tape.Fortunately the government was reasonable and allowed for video taping while stopping people from selling video tapes. The argument is the same today just the recording media is different.Video game piracy is a different kettle of fish and the content creators are currently experimenting in different ways of encouraging people to purchase them. Making games where the most used parts are online is one way but the most successful way has been with companies distributing games through online services such as Steam, Uplay, and Origin. GOG is a bit different where all games distributed by them are sold without any copyright protection guaranteeing your right to use the game does not stop if the distribution company fails. They started selling games that were old and not being distributed by any companies but have become so successful that several games yet to be released are currently being sold through their stores.

Ann:

Games were heavily pirated back in the day anyway - that is how much of their popularity was created. People distributing floppy disks or later CDs with games on them and the CD codes "cracked".

And yet the game industry survived - nay - flourished! But now that they have the ability to effectively police people's PCs they cry poor over every single copy given to a 12-year-old who would have no means to buy it anyway. If they went to mum and dad asking them to buy the $80 "Kill and Dismember" or whatever the latest title is, they would probably be turned away anyways.

Zing:

Actually it didn't. The industry lost millions of dollars in profits. Companies went under and the growth of surviving companies was stunted.

As a result, the industry shifted their business models to strengthen copyright protection. Modern games are now protected by DRM or shell programs like steam. In extreme cases, the game requires an ongoing internet connection so your game can be authenticated every few minutes - and the game boots you out as soon as the server detects a whiff of piracy.

Col'n:

10 Jun 2014 12:07:01pm

There are reputable commercial malware blocking programs which block incoming potential IP threats from any source, from reaching your computer to identify your IP address. That doesn't include your ISP, who can identify your IP by algorithm that you are or have been, downloading P2P data, but not identified as legal or otherwise.

Early Grayce:

10 Jun 2014 1:45:46pm

Torrent downloading which is the main source of Intellectual Property owners information needs your IP address to work so leaves one out in the open to having their details taken but a VPN tunnel puts your IP out of the reach of the media groups.

Col'n:

10 Jun 2014 3:36:12pm

Only tunnelers who may be, notionally, subject to Australian Commonwealth laws, unlike the troops during WWI with underground listening posts for activity, poles apart from an ISP which cannot determine the content of a P2P download, but only identify it as as a sharing transaction. A downloader of any file who hasn't taken the precaution of having a malware program to block any incoming IP threat of any description, is at a disadvantage, and is subject to identification by copyright holders, some of whom may contact the ISP which they have identified by the IP address presence during the download, and forward a notice of breach to the ISP, who may or may not notify that breach to the recipient client.

Goodgulf the wizard:

10 Jun 2014 9:54:04am

There are various reasons to download music or movies: just to see if they're any good. There's no substitute for watching a movie on the big screen. However, if you live in regional Australia, it may be a long drive to go and see a movie that is absolute crap.There are other people who can't handle being in crowds.And, you hear a good song on the radio or see a music video of it on TV. Buy the CD and the only good song is the one you've heard.

Once again, this government is only looking after Big Business, which is the only thing driving this government ship of fools.Loved the way Brandis was able to get Ms Credlin off her drink/driving charge. What hypocrisy!

sdrawkcaB:

Amarok:

10 Jun 2014 11:59:14am

So are you saying that illegal downloading is ok for regional people on the "try now, buy later plan"?? Copyright infringement is illegal regardless of what you or anyone else thinks is justification for doing it. BTW, what has Peta Credlin got to do with internet piracy??

carbon-based lifeform:

10 Jun 2014 4:25:21pm

Well, because George Brandis is the attorney-general and he is a hypocrite. He wants to punish some and lets off his friends.Do you have to drive a few hundred kilometres to see a movie on the full-screen? Bet you don't.

Goodgulf the wizard:

10 Jun 2014 6:00:37pm

Thank you for answering for me CBLF!The "city" is only 50 kms from me, but I suffer from an illness that makes it difficult to handle crowds.Brandis is a hypocrite who wants to allow right-wing idiots like Andrew Bolt to slander people and get away with it.

Ann:

11 Jun 2014 2:28:32pm

Every sensible industry tries to find ways to let consumers try their product for free in order to induce interest. Whether it's through a money-back guarantee, free samples or, the most reliable but hard to get, peer recommendation.

Just trying to sell a closed box with the promise that "you'll love what's inside" is pretty mad. Marketing, of course, is supposed to communicate the contents, but is usually used to lie about the contents, and consumers are in on that game now.

Game companies used to give out half the game for free; the same principle could be applied to TV series (first couple eps free) or even movies, if there was an instant option to "buy" the last half of the movie when you finish the free half.

Ted:

10 Jun 2014 10:23:58am

I will watch with interest what happens to those books and bookcases when Brandis is removed from office. Hopefully the approval for those purchases specified that ownership resided in the office, not the individual. Could be an interesting battle if he tries to take them with him.

DT:

Gary:

10 Jun 2014 10:50:46am

I would be interested to know what he thinks of Mr Hockey's legal action against Fairfax. Suing them for being 'overly sensational'? That would be a chilling precedent - would put Ltd News out of business.

Dave:

MJLC:

10 Jun 2014 11:28:11am

I suppose if you're of an excitable nature, in a bit of a rush with your mind elsewhere perhaps, then it's a fairly easy trap to fall into to think 'Hmmm, pirates?, pirates = boats, turn back the pirates' Rattus.

I'm looking forward to the legal conundrum of a pirate being offended at being prevented from downloading bigoted material - I could easily see the good senator's head exploding trying to weave a course through that one.

Quite agree with the unhappy Chris Berg observation by the way - I'd bet anything that this destabilising Turnbull chap has been messing around at dinner again.

The Jones Crusher:

"It seems as if the Abbott government has got one of its most strident pre-election supporters off side. I haven't seen a pro-Coalition article from Chris Berg in a long time."

Would "a long time" be "since they were elected"?

Has it crossed your mind that Chris Berg is simply "anti government", regardless of which party is in power? Right Wing Libertarians cut from Ronnie RayGun's cloth think "government" is the problem, remember?

I'll leave it to you to draw the line at where Libertarianism becomes Anarchism!

A Phibes:

10 Jun 2014 1:59:06pm

Nice try Crusher, Chris Berg could hardly be called "anti-government" any more than the coalition being classified as "hard right" in the real sense of the term. And no, government is not the problem - too much government is the problem. Unfortunately far too many "Aussies" have come to depend on big government to manage every aspect of "our" lives.

The Jones Crusher:

10 Jun 2014 2:48:11pm

Nice try, A Phibes..

"Chris Berg could hardly be called "anti-government"

really? Then why is Chris "anti" when government takes a position on anything from setting school curriculums and Voter Identification to the merging of Government departments or debt guarantees for Qantas? Let me put this another way.. I can find hard evidence that Chris Berg is anti-government, so why don't YOU put up some evidence that Chris is pro government?

"any more than the coalition being classified as "hard right" in the real sense of the term."

You are talking rubbish, unless "the real sense of the term" has Hitler and Stalin as the benchmark.. is that what you are saying?

" And no, government is not the problem - too much government is the problem. "

and the difference between "too much" and "not enough" is just a matter of opinion, and opinions are generally formed on a platform of ideological predisposition!

"Unfortunately far too many "Aussies" have come to depend on big government to manage every aspect of "our" lives."

Who are these Aussies? I don't know any of them and never had a conversation with one of them. HOW do the they depend on the government and WHAT aspect of their lives do they expect to have managed for them? As far as I can tell they are a bogey man created by the rabid right wing media, and I stopped believing in the bogey man as soon as I could read something one level up from children's texts!.

semprini:

Xyranius:

10 Jun 2014 10:06:48am

Well, at least the Coalition are just barely into the 21st century. Makes an interesting change from the 1950s thinking they normally seem to spout.

Unfortunately, internet piracy is in no way going to be stopped by either of those policies or even both combined. They can very easily be circumvented by using a VPN, which is completely legal and somewhat necessary even without piracy for keeping one's privacy on the internet.

The problem lies solely with the outdated distribution model. In Australia, we have minimal digital access to TV shows, movies, etc. in a timely, cost effective manner, such as Steam for gaming. It's 2015, it's time to start thinking that it is 2015.

Matthew Hutchens:

10 Jun 2014 1:04:01pm

Great point Xyranius, have not heard about a single pirated copy of a game from anyone I know since the advent and adoption of Steam. Evidently, the first few users of Steam told all their friends about how convenient, easy and cheap Steam was. For those that don't know, piracy often entails a significant amount of work by the end-user to get a working product.

Early Grayce:

10 Jun 2014 1:53:06pm

Unless you own both ends of the VPN your privacy issues have just moved to another location. Better to do your banking from your own connection unless you are using "free internet" at which time it is safer to tunnel into your home VPN and access it from your home internet.

DT:

10 Jun 2014 10:33:50am

Governments of the world are just coming to realise that, conceptually speaking, the internet is a place.

As such, they are sending in the troops to colonise this god forsaken land. They will remove the sub-human savages and the strange social norms that have evolved since the creation of this strange place. This will make it suitable for civilisation, lawyers, aristocrats, despots, and finally... government.

Oh well. It had to happen eventually. How long till we can make the next place to escape to?

carbon-based lifeform:

David S.:

10 Jun 2014 10:50:23am

As noted downloading copyrighted material is currently a civil, not a criminal offence in Australia, but that could change. All it would take would be a sufficiently short-sighted and foolish government, and we sure have that nowadays. See the US DCMA and proposed TPP changes. When civil penalties didn't work to the industry's satisfaction making them criminal offences was the next step.

Having just begun to unwind the insane incarceration rates driven by the out-of-control "drug war" the US is now looking to replace at least some of those prisoners with the latest moral panic - "internet piracy". The problem is of course that with drugs it was mainly blacks who got imprisoned, but with internet piracy it's mainly middle-class white offenders... But I'm sure they'll think of some way to fix that so it's mostly non-Caucasians that go to jail for downloading GoT. Then the war on internet piracy will go into overdrive!

Believing that the best way to change human behaviour is to simply make the penalties for an offence harsher and harsher, the current trajectory is not hopeful.

wandererfromoz:

10 Jun 2014 11:04:04am

I am just simply afraid of anything George Brandis does and when he teams with Tony Abbott it can descend into a nightmare - add Abetz, Hockey and that new chap on finance - horror results - and in steps Genghis Khan welcoming the company he is in - unfortunately ideology rather practicality rules us now and you can expect anything to happen at any time - after a while we will no longer be stunned into silence or even shocked - it will become just another part of life.

And if you think these words are at the extreme on a matter of downloading and copyright issues just let time convince you - you ain't seen nothing yet. It is interesting that in Germany in the Nazi era the government was hand in glove with business - particularly big business just as this government is - and if silly notions of freedom, charity, fairness, do unto other's what you would have done to you get in the way just bull-doze them out of the way with scorn and heaped abuse. The new credo with this ideologically driven mob is "might is right" (do what you like when you have the power to do and to hell with who gets crushed in the process) - "the end justifies the means" (ditto) and it will come eventually - "Two wrongs do make it right". Just wait - time will tell. The trend lines are already clear.

The Jones Crusher:

10 Jun 2014 11:05:24am

"If the copyright lobby convinces the Government to take responsibility for protecting its business model, that promise will be completely broken."

It's not a problem then, is it? Abbott would NEVER break an election promise, would he? Not after what he said about Julia and the Carbon Tax! It would just be blatant hypocrisy for Abbott to break an election promise so it just won't happen!

Not Me:

10 Jun 2014 11:06:52am

The government's proposals to stem copyright infringement just goes to show how out of touch these people are with technology.

If a site is blocked by an ISP there are several ways to get around that block. These methods are not complicated and anyone who is capable of downloading material now is capable of bypassing these blocks.

If an ISP disconnects a user there are many other ISPs who will trample over each other in order to reconnect the afore mentioned user via their service. Or does the Minister plan to create a blacklist of those people who shall not have access to the internet? Good luck with that George!

All I can do is quote the oft pirated movie "Star Wars" -"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Stephen G:

The biggest thing that annoys me about this debate is that those who want these kind of measures refuse to believe the fundamental fact:

There is no technological or legislative solution that can make a big difference to unauthorised copying of media.

In terms of technology - basically, DRM just can't work from a cryptography standpoint (the only DRM that could work is one that stopped the user from being able to view the media at all - which wouldn't be very useful).

And legislation has been tried in other countries. Three strikes laws - haven't made a difference. Threatening people with huge fines? Haven't made a difference.

The thing I find the strangest though is that time and time again, when we see content delivery systems that give consumers what they want - high quality content released at the same time as in the US, etc., such as Steam for games, people jump at the chance to pay for content.

Laws and technology aren't going to solve the problem. Stop crying about people 'stealing' for you and actually sell content in a way that makes people want to buy it...

hometapingiskillingmusic:

10 Jun 2014 2:27:30pm

When the printing press was invented a few hundred years ago the Catholic Church in France got the State to enact the death penalty for anyone using/owning a printing press, all to stop unauthorised copies of religious material entering the public domain. Well a few citizens were put to death, however the printing press went on to change the world. So much for the narrowminded control freak views of those in charge.

Whilst I've mentioned public domain, Ccopyright keeps content out of the public domain for longer & longer, now 70 years after the artist's death. Copyright was put in place to allow the artist to have a monopoly for a limited time so as to profit from their work. Afterwards it went into the public domain for all of society to benefit from.

Since last century the copyright length has slowly increased from 28yrs with another 28 years renewal if desired (an option which few artists ever took up) to the one now where the works of The Beatles from 50 years ago will remain locked up behind the copyright barrier until sometime after the year 2084 if Paul McCartney dies this year. However this length of time is considered to be utterly inadequate to encourage artists to produce new works, and it has been proposed by industry that an ideal copyright term to be one day less than infinity. It has already been proposed but has been knocked back, but that won't stop the push for longer copyright terms which are of no benefit to the artist (long since dead) or the public.

We shall see what happens in just a few short years as Disney Studios once again bribes, sorry, lobbies yankie politicians to increase the Copyright term for a longer period, all to keep early Mickey Mouse movies locked out of the public domain. As the politicians are controlled by big business/big money I put my money on the Copyright term to be increased yet again. Anyone care to bet against it happenning?

kp:

11 Jun 2014 8:59:50am

I've never really understood the disconnect between one form of intellectual property protections such as patents, which are limited to 20 years for a standard patent, and other forms of intellectual property covered by copyright, which in Australia can be up to 70 years after the death of the author. They really should be harmonised.

Early Grayce:

10 Jun 2014 11:45:19am

As a resident in a regional town many of my friends rely on access to media through whatever means necessary due to isolation.I am guessing any measures like the ones mentioned in this article will drive people to pay the $10 or so a month for VPN services which allows people to make a network tunnel to another country from which your traffic is then sent on to downloading sites. It takes little to setup this kind of service which can be run on either a site by site basis so that your legitimate traffic is still local or from a designated computer, we all have an old one sitting around in a cupboard, or from a virtual machine running within your computer.Avoiding any measures put in place by the government will be easy and only the least informed internet users will be caught by these measures.

EVAN:

10 Jun 2014 11:50:30am

I have no sympathy for the digital content industry and if they get pirated then bad luck.I can tell them how to stop getting pirated don't put your content where it can get pirated.Oh thats right thats how they make money.Not only do they want to make easy money by selling the content,a lot of which they did not create, but they want to divide up the world into zones so they can gouge more money out of consumers.

I am amused that probably the largest manufacturer of digital recording equipment is also the largest supplier of content Sony.So what do we need a video recorder for if we can't record anything with it.

Maybe people through out the world should have a campaign of disobedience and download as much content as they can.

Also interesting denying people access to the internet. I wonder if the government has thought this through.With the intrusion of the net into our lives how we go about dealing with government if we have no access to the internet.Could we say sorry can't pay that bill as it requires internet access.

PPSC:

10 Jun 2014 11:57:55am

Freedom of Speech is not absolute, Chris. Neither is Freedom of Expression. Or silence. Where possible, we jail thieves, if we catch them - we fine motorists if they speed. What else do we have roads and stoplights for?

Matthew Hutchens:

10 Jun 2014 12:15:56pm

I would much prefer changes to copyright laws ie the copyright is only valid for a reasonable and finite period of time or at least have different levels of copyright protection that take time of creation into account. In the example of a TV show the copyright could literally be just a few hours - enough time for the original broadcasters to guarantee exclusivity and generate advertising revenue but not punishing end users once the largest share of profit has been secured. In fact many original TV broadcasters already have the same opinion.Movies have almost self regulated themselves because end user pirates will generally wait until DVD has been released. If a movie doesn't make money in the cinemas it probably won't on DVD either.Artists are serial thieves anyway. Since when has a successful artist used a truly original and individual concept to create anything (I have attended contemporary classical performances that are definitely original but not profitable)? If artists don't tailor products to suit existing tastes they will not be profitable, this in itself suggest that artists are merely developing on an existing theme. I mean should anyone writing a song with a 4/4 beat be forced to pay the ancestor (or family of) who originally invented the 4/4 beat style of arrangement a commission/compensation? Books (and plays) are most commonly the re-arrangement of stolen experiences. Rarely have I met an author whose own life was so interesting that they didn't need to 'borrow' elements from other pieces/persons. Should each written composition be deconstructed and the author forced to prove that each element in question originates solely from personal experience? If they can't should the author be forced to pay commission/compensation to the original source or even the others involved in a shared experience?I think it's high time to discuss expiry of copyright and or a tiered copyright environment. I truly believe that copyright expiry should be brought in line with the pace of the modern world. And I also think that 'artists' should get over themselves, after all performance trumps composition anytime IMO. There are plenty of rich successful artists out there in existence and there are plenty of failed careers in most industries (who would want to be the most experienced car manufacturing worker in Australia right now?).

Gordon:

10 Jun 2014 12:20:17pm

Freedom of knowledge is one of the points of difference between pre- and post-enlightenment societies. The Royal Society did not embargo the work of Darwin and Faraday etc. Another is a rule of law, the right to property & the fruits of ones labour. Now that physical goods are made almost limitlessly by the industrious Chinese the only valuable properties we have left are knowledge products - ie information.

There is thus a clash between two founding principles of our prosperity. We need information to circulate freely yet we need some value to accrue to the initiators else there is no tangible incentive. Anyone with a solution is welcome to append it...it's a tough one.

A.I. Eliza:

Claudius Pseudonymus:

10 Jun 2014 12:31:16pm

Hmmm, sounds like a bugle sounding the "Last Post". The internet revolution is a mega giant killer tsunami that is bearing down all over the world and no man made artificial barrier or threatening legal consequences is going to stop it.

As if ISPs are ever going to disconnect their paying customers and see them going to rival companies without similar scruples.

And as if suing the parents for what a child has done is ever going to either stop downloading by hundreds of millions of other people nor even garner a single cent from the defendants.

And how many class action suits can any one company launch? A million or even a billion suits spanning across whole continents? Not even the richest Film Studio or Music Company can afford such nonsense. The legal fees from even 100 civil action suits would bankrupt the litigants before they get a single cent from the defendants.

And as pointed out by the operators of The Pirate Bay and other P2P operators, what makes the USA think that their piracy laws actually apply in other countries? And even if they did, the costs involved in pursuing wholesale individual class action lawsuits alone would bankrupt any plaintiff. Forcing other countries to close down their websites has also failed miserably as mirror P2P networks surface elsewhere almost within the next hour!

Perhaps rather than trying to play King Canute, countries should adopt a more practical approach as indeed practiced openly by China and across the whole of Asia. There downloading is taken for granted and piracy rates exceed 90%. Whenever some Yank complains about it, the authorities put on a great show of arresting individuals in the open markets selling Microsoft and Playstation products, only to have the same operators being released the next day and buying back their confiscated merchandise from the police themselves.

As a certain Asian notable once candidly admitted, the vast majority of computer hardware is being manufactured in Asia. They pump out billions of CDs, laptops and mobiles each day. Millions of their own people are being gainfully employed in the computer and related component industries. Their societies are being electronically entertained, educated and linked at a remarkably cheap cost.

And since the overwhelming majority of computer software programs, music, movies and games emanate from the USA, the Asian economies are saving billions in copyrights fees which, if paid, would be billions in hard earned foreign currency flowing out of their local economies straight into the USA.

The advantages in NOT applying strict USA copyright laws are simply overwhelming compared to the threats of class action lawsuits or US sanctions which are usually temporary and easily skirted even by the majority of US companies and individuals.

Again rather than trying to stop what is unstoppable, better to "surf" the tidal wave

chugs:

As a creator, who's family and friends have created some of Australia's greatest film and television I have to say to all those reading please continue to "pirate" and don't stop.

Firstly all of the people involved in creation of film and television pirate. The video tape departments of the main channels (the people who put the 1 inch tapes into the beta machines) were the first pirates in Australia. They used to trade massive amounts of material around. So many sex tapes were traded.

The directors, producers, cameramen (people) and editors were the second biggest piraters. Not only did they use to grab bootlegs when flying around the world but they also had the hardware to copy it and distribute it.

That said and in a contradiction to the above all of industry these people also buy massive amounts of media. Though they do get to write it off in their tax so its quite hypocrtical of them to buy it and then basically force the public to shoulder the cost.

The third point I would like to make is that the copyright debate these days is firmly framed in appeasing the US and their Hollywood studios & FoxTel.

See FoxTel makes a massive amount of cash selling Shows like Games of Throne (GoT). Imagine, a $70 month subscription is required in order to view the show and with say 3 million people watching GoT multiplied by that $70 you basically have a money spinner that is worth easily $2.5b per annum! No wonder Fox has spoken about suing viewers to scare people into paying for a subscription.

Also at risk and why the government is trying to smash piracy is the exclusive quadripolistic arrangement FoxTel and the Free 2 Air channels have with regards to exclusive licences to distribute American content. Simpsons, Game of Thrones, Seinfield, Friends and so many other shows are commodities that Australia viewers are forced to view through heavily restrictive and controlled circumstances.

Like cattle you are to these channels and their execs (seriously, I have heard them refer to viewers as animals)

That dreaded Youtube message about the content being unavailable to Australia is due to the fact the Channels have paid to excursively broadcast that content in Australia.

We are talking an industry that makes billions off of this content and who are viciously attacking their customers in order to keep their massive margins.

I've disabled Free2Air in my house. I refuse to support an arrangement that is ripping off the public so viciously.

I also refuse to purchase DVD/Blu-rays these days. I refuse to support publishers and local distributors who rip off the public to such an extent. Also for any old content I have paid enough over the years in adverts, theatres and even purchasing it to ever pay, say, for another copy of Star Wars again.

My opinion is that I want to watch the content when i want and how I wa

Mitor the Bold:

11 Jun 2014 2:14:53am

This is the point - just because Australia is a million miles from anywhere and just because the media companies can use that fact to charge anything they like doesn't mean they should be able to. It's not just media but most consumer goods, like cars, electronics, musical instruments.

Governments have not used legislation to prevent gouging but now technology allows consumers to do it themselves. I remember in the 1990s paying $30 for a CD - today I bought the same collection of tracks on iTunes for $10 or thereabouts. So, in 20 years the same music is about $50 cheaper (in adjusted dollars) yet the company that sold it to me today is the most profitable in the world, so god only knows how much EMI et al were making back in the day.

Get a top-up US credit card from Walmart online, get a redirection service to send it to you in Aus, top it up online and save yourself $000s on all sorts of goods and services. Get a VPN for $5 per month, watch Netflix, listen to Pandora, buy iTunes tracks cheaper than here, buy subscriptions to expensive software at half price. Tony Abbott isn't about to open our markets to competition so it's up to us to do it ourselves. Let's see how much Gerry Harvey etc really love the free market.

Ann:

11 Jun 2014 2:39:56pm

Both books and DVDs/CDs/whatever they will create in the future, are going to need to transition towards a "collection" model - where the content is cheaply shared, but premium "hardcopy" editions are available.

Of course book publishers already do this on a small scale, but ebooks are going to take the place of the disposable paperback, so they really really need to encourage people to find worth in the well-made hardcover copies that have pictures and gilt edging on the pages and so forth.

Similarly with DVDs that come in special cases or with physical things that can't be copied - cloth maps, little figurines, calenders; some kickstarter campaigns give you personally addressed messages at certain pay brackets.

Would people who pirate Game of Thrones be happy to pay a lot of money for a DVD set that came signed by their favourite actor and personally addressed to them? I'm willing to bet they would pay a LOT for that. Like, a LOT a LOT.

chas:

10 Jun 2014 12:41:47pm

This is about Foxtel. They have made a grab for exclusive content and are upset that people are not buying into it. The big media companies have been ripping off Australia for years. We pay substantially more to download a product than individuals in the US or UK (if we can get it). But of course when Mr Murdoch says jump, Mr Brandis will ask how high.

dman:

10 Jun 2014 12:45:10pm

I think the elephant in the room here is the return paid to artists. Pirating is theft, yes....but people feel less concerned about making sure multi-billion dollar multinationals who have been ripping people off for years and years get there money. I think people would be less likely to pirate if the wealth generated by the material was more evenly distributed, and the cost of the material was cheaper in the first place. I know none of this justifies stealing; however, something has to change or nothing will.

Early Grayce:

10 Jun 2014 1:57:56pm

This is one of the reasons more content creators are self publishing. They can make more money per unit sold compared to using a major distribution service but they do not generally have access to the same advertising budgets. This works well for known artist that can leverage their notoriety but for new artists it takes a bit of ingenuity.

Mark James:

reg64:

10 Jun 2014 1:19:48pm

Websites like the Pirate Bay host torrent files...

This is rubbish. Berg is absolutely wrong. If this were the case The Pirate Bay would have been shut down long ago. The Pirate Bay does not host ANY files. Berg is like pepper and salt. He's in everything - but he's not always factual.

KevinS:

10 Jun 2014 1:23:26pm

Copyright is a complex area of Australian and international law. Piracy is clearcut albeit difficult to pursue.What I do know is the the copyright lobby has essentially failed in the US with the "Right to Free Speech" dominating in the debate.Should it be any different in Australia?As one who saw a innovative but commercially unprotected business logo of mine essentially permanently borrowed by another. I know the difficulty, complexity and cost of even initially pursuing redress.

It seems copyright is the domain of large players. For instance there have been claims by free source software designers against larger commercial designers. Also claims from online news current issues sites that journalists at large media corporations have extracted content for use.

Where does inspiration from another source in creating or producing stop and stealing take over? I've wondered this very point when I view something in YouTube.

What this government said and did in Opposition and what it says and does in Government now continues to be the greatest issue. When it comes to freedom of speech or protecting mega commercial interests, I think Chris Berg knows what exactly this government will do.

matt1000:

10 Jun 2014 1:23:37pm

I think that the problem is that the entertainment industry has become too greedy. If someone provided the legal equivalent to Pirate Bay and only charged just a small amount to download a movie or TV series, then piracy would not be a big problem. But they want to charge far too much!

ScottBE:

10 Jun 2014 1:42:15pm

What an absurdly draconian approach. Its the same as making cannabis illegal - it only promotes criminal conduct and intent to obtain what one desires. It is not a deterrent because everyone who commits the heinous crime of "pirating" does not believe they will be caught.

I download Game of Thrones because I will not pay a major retailer for a one-off viewing. I then buy the DVD when it becomes available because I have developed a passion for the show (dammit!). I do not consider myself a "pirate" or breaching copyright because my intent ti to buy when it becomes available.

Mr Brandis has some bizarre notions of freedom of speech. He thinks that bigots have a right to practice bigotry, but will defend them against those who criticise bigotry. Freedom of speech for the worst but silence those damned critics!

Similarly with this issue. Promote laws which criminalise ordinary behaviour and damn those who disagree with him!

ScottBE:

10 Jun 2014 1:49:32pm

Chris, I do like your work... but are you aware just how damaging outsourcing responsibility truly is?

I live in the Hunter region where outsourcing of disability services is sprouting outsourced services is rampant. Guess what! Prices have soared, businesses are getting rich while providing services far below the standard of previous Government delivered services.

Moreover, many essential services, such as caseworking clients and even physiotherapy, are not considered profitable and so are being left out.

Outsourcing may improve the cost of providing services to the government that is responsible for providing the service, but the services are downgraded and it is merely a means for "not-for-profit" schemes to make big "surpluses".

Hospitals are a great example of this. If you have any doubts about this check out the Calvary (Little Company of Mary) annual report. Their "surpluses" are astonishing!

Tim:

10 Jun 2014 1:54:43pm

How else do you get GOTS4 without third party forcing. If you want it you have to have Foxtel. There are no other avenues to get it.

Also interesting that the government could legislate to decrease market share of an ISP by making them disconnect someone from the internet. If you were disconnected then you would just move ISP's. How could they disconnect a service that is part of another service like a mobile phone.

There are more important things to solve that copyright infringements.

Kevin52:

10 Jun 2014 2:00:53pm

Make no mistake.If the federal government is using the excuse of going after copyright material on line and that they say they will preserve your privacy, what they really mean is:- We'll use this as an excuse for getting better access to your records so we can use the access any way we please.Governments all around the world are trying to get better access to your records and that is not good for anybody's privacy.Don't fall for it.You'll all be sorry.

Judy Bee:

Well evidence is clearly not a facet of the IPA. A scroll through the Coalition Election policy page on the Liberal Party web site has promised us everything, the world will be put right and perfect in every possible way. Worth a look if you are interested in perusing a catalogue of unlikely committments. Or 'promises'. But where is the mention of " Freedom of Speech Defending"?.

Copyright infringement if addressed properly would benefit the economy. After all we are obsessed with money aren't we? Freedom of Speech in Australia is not under threat, economic or otherwise, unless you are a public servant at risk of being 'dobbed in' by a coleague for criticising the government on social media. Freedom of Speech in Australia is also under threat if you happen to work under editorial restraints within the Murdochian empire.

Rasmuncher:

Geoff:

10 Jun 2014 2:39:57pm

This is not a fight between content creators and the public interest, it is a fight between the distribution industry and the public interest. Said industry has bullied and bought its way to a position of dominance over the creative arts, and lobbied heavily for regulatory structures that benefit and protect its distribution models above all else. This is not a free market nor does it serve the interests of wider society, it is nothing more than a robber baron business strategy.

ram:

Stephen S:

10 Jun 2014 3:03:55pm

Firstly, who does the government work for, and who pays their wages? That's right, the Australian taxpayer does. So why is this even being debated? Could it be that the Australian government in fact working for the multinationals and other Corporate interests, such as Hollywood and the likes? This amuses me because you never read or see a complaint, from any Individual musician or actors, even on Social Media, not a word! Secondly, this is only a further step in "treading" over our freedoms and privacy, something that all humans are entitled too, by International Law, and will only further allow government to supress our human rights, a move that is currently taking Americans, by storm, as Tyranny begins to make its mark! If you have children, their future is now being threatened with not only enslavement, but the use of force! Obama has also just brought into law, ANYONE found slandering or putting down government, shall now be treated as a "terrorist". This is no joke! Go and do some searches if you don't believe me~

graazt:

10 Jun 2014 3:09:39pm

Couple this with Brandis' alleged desire to force ISPs to store their customer's metadata for 2 years on the off-chance the cops might have use of it and what you get is the sort of big-government, authoritarian fascist that we saw in Conroy.

jungle69:

10 Jun 2014 3:25:34pm

This is just another heavy handed move to protect the friends of the LNP like Fox and Sony. It will have little if no effect on pirating. While I don't condone pirating, offenders will always find other ways. Perhaps the Attorney General could look at dealing with cyber criminals and producing effective ways to protect innocent internet users from the dangers of the internet. Rather than looking after big multinational business which should be able to look after its own dealings.

Clarke:

10 Jun 2014 3:57:40pm

Most artists don't have the means to enforce their copyright. They are ripped off by the entire system: producers, publishers, manufacturers, distributors, retailers - and now - the public who think it's ok to steal from the poor.

Of course, Berg has the means to sue if people infringe on HIS copyright.

paul:

whatif:

10 Jun 2014 5:05:49pm

The government cant even get the NBN up and running , so how do they think they can control some thing as huge as the internet, after all if you cant even run a small country like Australia, how the hell are you going to control cyber space. Its like asking some one in government to run heaven and hell.

darthseditious:

10 Jun 2014 7:55:32pm

For once I agree with the author, both options being proposed by the AG will be a dogs breakfast to enforce, with the second option of blocking easily circumvented by use of a VPN. Beware of politicians who go on a crusade against something, common sense is often the first casualty. In the case of piracy, it would be better if the consumer was given priority and laws enacted or enforced that made it easier for legal access to copyrighted material and laws that outlaw such behaviour by the likes of Foxtel for making exclusive deals for content. Unfortunately the current government is firmly on the side of the corporates against their own citizens. Looks like I will have to find a good vpn.

PiratePete:

11 Jun 2014 1:22:37am

Let he who hasn't sinned cast the first stone. So all of you contributing on this forum have NEVER EVER EVER 1, Taped a cassette or radio show or radio songs "when they existed"?, 2. Never taped a TV show to "watch later" using a VCR (when they existed)? 3. Never used a HD to record shows to watch later? Never burnt a music CD to listen to in the car? Never put music from your CD's onto a USB stick or your IPOD to listen to in your car?

I Googled 'box office earnings 2013' to see how much money these companies are making from each movie. The Numbers dot com site from is a US site that lists ticket sales and income from the movies alone in the US. lists Iron Man 3 grossed $408,992,272 ticket sales 50,121,601. Not bad for US alone considering it was a male orientated movie, Wikipedia reported that Iron Man 3 grossed $1,215,439,994 worldwide from movie ticket sales alone! Warner Bros and Disney had at least 5 each in the top 20 last year. So those two did very well.

DVD home sales taken from the same site so is US sales only...No 1 The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, Part 2, units sold 4,909,041 earnings $72,352,682, not bad seen as thou it is considered a series aimed at mainly females.

Seems like the big movie companies are raking in the dough to me. Considering that the main movie companies that dominate the market are Warner, Disney, Sony, Universal, Fox. Oh and don't forget the movie merchandise turn over too!

Make movies a fair price, stop holding back material to try and monopolize the market (Foxtel) and stop trying to commercialize and censor the web by using piracy as an example of why we need to introduce censorship and monitoring, because I can tell you that that's what these big companies are trying to achieve. It is bad enough that the NSA spies on our social media, now we want to allow others to pry into our movie/music genre interests?

The companies are making billions a year from movies sales. Get over it people and lets focus on more important stuff like finding MH370...oh that's right they (NORAD) know where it is.

indifferent:

am:

11 Jun 2014 4:14:59pm

Game of Thrones was the most pirated tv show in 2013, with highest percentage of piracy coming from Australia. Why?

To view GoT 'legally' in Australia, I either have to wait 4/5 months for DVD to come out after the season has finished, sign up to an expensive ($250-370+ per year) and mostly unnecessary (presuming I only want to watch GoT) cable package. These are the only 2 options.

I do not have the option of service like Netflix where I pay a small amount of money and am able to watch pretty much unlimited shows. If you are an avid follower of the show and do not wish to be 'spoiled' pirating the show is the only way you can watch it soon after it airs in another country.

Latest Episode

Hot Topic

The Prime Minister has announced Australia will be expanding its military role in Iraq for up to two years. Tony Abbott has signed off on sending 300 Australian soldiers for a joint mission with New Zealand.